Nice to see the shout out on Donte Moncrief, good choice and I'd be happy with him in the second for sure (based solely on what we've seen and how he projects) but a lot can change over the course of a year for sure

HighlandHawk wrote:Nice to see the shout out on Donte Moncrief, good choice and I'd be happy with him in the second for sure (based solely on what we've seen and how he projects) but a lot can change over the course of a year for sure

Really like his skillset. He looks really fast on tape for that 6'2/220 frame and is way more polished than Chris Harper.

A lot of what happens in 2013, namely growth of younger players, injuries, as well as success, I feel like if the Seahawks can win a Superbowl, much of the young nucleus will take discounts to remain as well as the higher paid players will re-construct for others to remain with the team. Also, there could be certain "x" factors that could come into play, for instance:

With Browner, most of us continue to think that he is an expendable assest, and really don't seem him in the long term plans of the team, but I feel the "Legion of Boom" is a pretty tight knit team. Browner is still young in actual football years as 29 year old CB and if his skill-set does start to deteriorate somewhat I think that are translatable enough for him to have success in a big safety role.

But kicker for Browner is, if the Seahawks make the effort to keep the "Legion of Boom" together, could that make a big difference as to if Richard Sherman would sign for 12 million per if we had signed Browner back committing the Seahawks to keep the league's best 2ndary together as opposed to Sherman signing for 16+ million had we just let Browner go for nothing.

I think these Seahawks will restructure: Miller, Rice, and possibly Bryant, if he's not cut.

More assumptions:

I assume the Seahawks should keep two of Bryant, Bennett, and McDaniel. The odd man out, imo: Bryant. The other two players are more scheme versatile and Bennett is a great at defending the run as a DE while McDaniel is more a Clinton McDonald back-up player who can play 5-tech and provides excellent ST value with his long arms.

I assume the Seahawks should keep one of Winfield and Thurmond. The odd man out, imo: Winfield. Due to age, and I feel if Thurmond is finally healthy, he easily can become one of the better Nickel CBs in the NFL.

I also see the Seahawks keeping one of Giacomini or McQuistan. McQuistan, imo, will get cheaper. While Giacomini will become more expensive.

If Rice restructures, Seahawks can keep Tate and Baldwin for at least one more year. But I agree at least one of Rice, Tate, or Baldwin will be gone from this team unfortunately in 2014. My guess would be Baldwin. Rice, Tate, and Harvin could become an amazing trio and having Tate and Harvin on the field with Lynch is just devastating towards opposing defenders.

Brady Quinn and Jeron Johnson both have a good chance of not making the club this year.

On Harper: While he is a project players, I feel like one of the primary reason's the Seahawks did draft him was he'll be able to fill the Ben Obomanu role playing different spots as well as providing solid to great special teams. The other reason, to win in the NFL, you have to be prepared for everything. Four types of players that were missing from the Seahawks' Offense: Explosive, shifty back w/ home run potential; exposive, shifty, quick WR w/ home run potential; big Bolden-esque physical imposing WR; and athletic pass-catching TE.

I'd just add on the future of the WR position...I'd much rather keep Tate than Rice. Has Tate ever even been hurt? I know Rice somehow made it through a full season last year, but I don't think any of us really expect that to happen again. I'd rather keep the younger, and far healthier Tate going forward if I only could afford one of them.

Plus, it seems like Tate and Wilson have a great chemistry going. You dont want to mess with that. If Rice will restructure, great. But if not, I'd get his bloated contract off the books and keep Tater.

Pandion Haliaetus wrote:But kicker for Browner is, if the Seahawks make the effort to keep the "Legion of Boom" together, could that make a big difference as to if Richard Sherman would sign for 12 million per if we had signed Browner back committing the Seahawks to keep the league's best 2ndary together as opposed to Sherman signing for 16+ million had we just let Browner go for nothing.

This was a major point of consideration leading me to speculate that Browner would be tagged.

Both ET and Sherm have been very clear about their desire to keep the LOB together and Sherm has recently stated that BB was his equal and deserved to be paid the same. While that might not be our reality, it is Sherm's reality and accommodating this could work out for all parties involved. We'll be negotiating Sherm and ET's extensions next off-season and my feeling is that franchising Browner will give us leverage. While $10mm may be a premium for Browner, it is just for a season and could potentially save us a boatload on Sherm and ET. Even if we don't commit to BB long-term, franchising BB furthers the FO's reputation as one that takes care of its players.

Pandion Haliaetus wrote:I assume the Seahawks should keep two of Bryant, Bennett, and McDaniel.

I think we may keep Tony McDaniel. IMO Bryant and Bennett are too rich.

Pandion Haliaetus wrote:I assume the Seahawks should keep one of Winfield and Thurmond.

I could see that but there's still the probability that age catches up with Winfield and injury history catches up with Thurmond. Even if Winfield manages to play at a high level and Thurm manages to stay healthy this season, do you think those risks will go away? Would you feel comfortable relying on these two for multiple seasons?

Pandion Haliaetus wrote:I also see the Seahawks keeping one of Giacomini or McQuistan.

I don't see it. Both are unremarkable and my feeling is Person, Bowie, Moffit, Seymour, Sweezy, et. al. could fill in admirably at lower cost.

Pandion Haliaetus wrote:If Rice restructures, Seahawks can keep Tate and Baldwin for at least one more year. But I agree at least one of Rice, Tate, or Baldwin will be gone from this team unfortunately in 2014. My guess would be Baldwin. Rice, Tate, and Harvin could become an amazing trio and having Tate and Harvin on the field with Lynch is just devastating towards opposing defenders.

I love Tate but you've got to see the situation for what it is.

1. Rice and Harvin have a history with Bevell. 2. Golden Tate will be an unrestricted free agent.3. We can't afford to pay Golden Tate what he is worth, which is probably in excess of $5mm per year.4. Both Harvin and Harper were acquired prior to Tate's contract year.5. Harvin and Harper offer skills that are much more similar to Tate than Sidney Rice.

SDHawk wrote:This was a major point of consideration leading me to speculate that Browner would be tagged.

Both ET and Sherm have been very clear about their desire to keep the LOB together and Sherm has recently stated that BB was his equal and deserved to be paid the same. While that might not be our reality, it is Sherm's reality and accommodating this could work out for all parties involved. We'll be negotiating Sherm and ET's extensions next off-season and my feeling is that franchising Browner will give us leverage. While $10mm may be a premium for Browner, it is just for a season and could potentially save us a boatload on Sherm and ET. Even if we don't commit to BB long-term, franchising BB furthers the FO's reputation as one that takes care of its players.

I can't say I agree on the discount theory. I think Sherman will want to get paid, and he'll have a certain dollar amount. Sherman is a stand up guy, but lets not think he doesn't have an ego. I think that in FA, he'll handle his business in a very similar manner to what we just saw from Revis.

Also, by the time Sherman hits FA, Browner will be over 30 years old. Very few corners maintain pro-bowl ability after hitting 30, and the few that do tend to be smaller corners. Browner is the biggest corner in the league, by a healthy margin. Even if Seattle franchised Browner in 2014, and then signed him to an expensive multi-year extension, it wouldn't take long before performance dropoff would make him a target for restructure or release. If Browner were still here, I think everyone would know that his days would be very much numbered by that point, especially if he was on a big contract.

And with Kam locked up at safety, that kind of kills the position switch idea. You wouldn't pay Browner pro-bowl money to play the Jeron Johnson role.

Though Browner really is an elite level defender, I am okay with letting him walk because at the end of the day, I don't think his remaining shelf life is worth the cap expense. We'd very likely get a 3rd round pick from the league if he left in UFA too, which is a lot better than releasing him a year or two into a big contract and getting nothing.

PC/JS have shown a knack for bargain hunting when it comes to the secondary. A major reason why our roster is so good right now is because we are getting so much value per dollar out of our back 7. But if you pay every one of them pro-bowl money, suddenly that value aspect isn't true anymore, and there aren't any starter spots left to plug in the next big find. That gift for finding great yet cheap contributors in the secondary is one of our biggest advantages over the league, and we'd basically have to discard that advantage for several seasons if we paid the entire legion of boom to do it.

I also have high hopes for Tharold Simon, but I'm holding those thoughts back until we see him in action. Thurmond has missed a lot of time, but he's extremely talented and probably won't cost much to retain next offseason. Finding cheap yet good players needs to be a constant goal so that the Seahawks can remain the NFL's top roster.

I would wait until I see McDaniel play for us before I pencil him in. Also, I was under the impression that McDaniel was strictly a 3-tech. If Bryant and Bennett both leave, who becomes the new 5-tech? I guess it would be Greg Scruggs, though they appeared to be grooming Scruggs for more of a pure 3-tech role last I checked. Or maybe the draft a rookie and start him.

I'm pulling for Bennett big time (as a 5-tech). He reminded me of Justin Tuck last season, while also being a very good run defender. He is EXACTLY what this pass rush desperately needs from it's 5-tech role.

SDHawk wrote:I don't see it. Both are unremarkable and my feeling is Person, Bowie, Moffit, Seymour, Sweezy, et. al. could fill in admirably at lower cost.

Mark that down as the first time in history that someone described Breno as "unremarkable."

I agree that McQuistan is probably gone. Heck, Frank Omiyale had a really nice season for us last year and could have been kept dirt cheap, but they didn't bring him back. Though McQuistan deserves to be kept, I think the depth we have at guard allows us to move on.

Giacomini is yet to be determined, IMO. At his best, he looks like one of the five best right tackles in the game. I thought he dominated the preseason last year and he finished the regular season with his penalty problem under control. Despite that, I think he needs to continue improving to justify a 2nd contract. If he takes that next step in 2013, then I sign him back no question (I'd be pretty surprised if he got much interest league wide).

Of course, if I'm wrong and Giacomini is getting big offers from other teams, then Seattle has to evaluate their roster at that point and decide what's best. Right now our backup group is physically talented but inexperienced. I also think Sweezy is our long term RG, though it's true that he has the physical tools to play tackle.

SDHawk wrote:I love Tate but you've got to see the situation for what it is.

1. Rice and Harvin have a history with Bevell. 2. Golden Tate will be an unrestricted free agent.3. We can't afford to pay Golden Tate what he is worth, which is probably in excess of $5mm per year.4. Both Harvin and Harper were acquired prior to Tate's contract year.5. Harvin and Harper offer skills that are much more similar to Tate than Sidney Rice.

I agree with a few of those points, but don't forget that Wilson and Tate are a close knit pair both on the field and off it. Towards the end of last season, Tate clearly emerged as Wilson's favorite target. I think Sando had the exact breakdown, but over the final 7 games or so Tate had 33% more receptions than 2nd place finisher Sidney Rice. 32 to 24? Something like that.

Tate also had quite a few big catches and big plays last season that couldn't be replaced by Chris Harper. His YAC TD against Minnesota, his YAC TD (which turned out to be the game winner) against Carolina. His (should have been) game winner at the end of regulation vs. Chicago. Maybe Percy Harvin can replace that, but Harvin doesn't play the same position and has significant differences to Tate in usage and skillset.

WR is one of those positions on the team where you can never have too many good ones. So if Tate can be kept at a reasonable figure, I don't see much room for debate. You keep him. Basically, you never want to toss away a player who's performance outstrips his paycheck. This team is great specifically because it has so many players who are outperforming their pay level. If Tate gets the contract that I think he will, then he'll likely remain in that category. If you could get 90% of Percy Harvin for 50% of the cost, you'd take it, right?

Tate's counting stats looked pedestrian, but his efficiency numbers were elite and he literally won games for us on multiple occasions.

Right now, Tate is one of our most valuable players on offense, while also being one of the few Seahawks who remains under the radar nationally. It's not very often that you can be a championship caliber team and be able to keep one of your best players at a reasonable rate of cost. But that's the way things are headed for Tate right now, and if it remains so I think Seattle would be wise to retain him.

I can't say I agree on the discount theory. I think Sherman will want to get paid, and he'll have a certain dollar amount. Sherman is a stand up guy, but lets not think he doesn't have an ego. I think that in FA, he'll handle his business in a very similar manner to what we just saw from Revis.

From what I've seen and heard, there is a chemistry/cohesion in this locker room unlike in any other locker room. My belief is that many of the players want to stay and would take a hometown discount - hell, even players from other teams have given the Hawks a discount (see Winfield, Avril, Bennett), why wouldn't our own players? Maybe hometown discount isn't the right phrase. I'm only suggesting the possibility that Sherman may choose to get paid very handsomely as opposed to insisting on getting paid reckless amounts of money. We've heard of franchise players taking paycuts "for the good of the team" countless times before. Why is Sherman the exception?

I would wait until I see McDaniel play for us before I pencil him in. Also, I was under the impression that McDaniel was strictly a 3-tech. If Bryant and Bennett both leave, who becomes the new 5-tech? I guess it would be Greg Scruggs, though they appeared to be grooming Scruggs for more of a pure 3-tech role last I checked. Or maybe the draft a rookie and start him.

I have Jesse Williams there. In my super-fake mock scenario, we look like this:

Of course, if I'm wrong and Giacomini is getting big offers from other teams, then Seattle has to evaluate their roster at that point and decide what's best. Right now our backup group is physically talented but inexperienced. I also think Sweezy is our long term RG, though it's true that he has the physical tools to play tackle.

Alvin Bailey and Mike Person reportedly look really good at RT and theres also Michael Bowie. Were paying Giacomini $4mm+ this season. I'm not sure we'll keep him for 2014 and beyond.

Right now, Tate is one of our most valuable players on offense, while also being one of the few Seahawks who remains under the radar nationally. It's not very often that you can be a championship caliber team and be able to keep one of your best players at a reasonable rate of cost. But that's the way things are headed for Tate right now, and if it remains so I think Seattle would be wise to retain him.

Yeah and with Harvin out and Tate's budding rapport with Russell Wilson, I don't think Tate will remain under the radar for long, making it exponentially more difficult to retain him.. but I think you've been coming around to that realization, recently.

...

There's also the possibility that we cut Zach Miller. He's not been looking so healthy lately and the Hawks have been hyperactive at the position. That might give us the flexibility to work something out with Tate.

Regardless of our depth at CB I just don't see how you can feel good about letting Browner go. That secondary is what keeps that defense together even though they are weak through the linebackers and d-line. You actually create a pass rush and then talk to me about trading or letting go of Browner.

I enjoy ruining threads by making them about personal attacks and then commenting about how personal attacks make the other person's argument invalid.

Attyla the Hawk wrote:I really would hate it if we went DE early in the draft. Isn't Irvin/Bennet/Clemons/Avril enough? Do we really need another edge rusher while not addressing interior rush?

I'd really like for us to stop acquiring light DEs turned SAMs in order to upgrade our interior pass rush. It's simply ignoring the problem.

Clem is likely a roster cut and Bennett is a free agent. Jury is still out on Avril.

On top of all this, Aaron Lynch isn't some ordinary DE. Here's what you said in Kearly's Crystal Ball post:

Agreed. His combination of explosion on the snap, coupled with his ability to use his arms to get a decisive advantage early in his rush is amazing. I watched him just after watching Ra'shede Hageman and the difference in quality is instantly recognizable. And that quality doesn't diminish whether he's lined up over the guard or outside the tackle.

Lynch is one I'll be expecting to be an absolute beast. He could easily play his way out of our scope come draft day.

That's true. I still like Lynch and will watch him as closely as possible this year. The thing is, if he's that special he won't be there for us. I don't want us taking whatever sloppy seconds fall to the last third of the draft at DE. I'd much rather take a flyer on a DT prospect. Obviously if Lynch ends up tearing it up, or if Clowney falls to the last few picks, I'd change my mind. The latter won't happen. The former, if it does, means that he trips on his meat during the season and probably isn't worth the first round pick to begin with.

I don't want some generically available mid 20th overall DE talent. That's the drafting equivalent of getting Tarvaris to be your starter because you don't like the alternatives. Adding another DE just means our pass rush will be critically flawed for yet another season.